News
FDA: iPods unlikely to interfere with pacemakers
Contrary to a study presented last May, a new U.S. Food and Drug Administration study shows that iPods, and other portable media players, are unlikely to cause cardiac implantable pacemakers to malfunction. FDA researcher Howard Bassen and colleagues tested a variety of iPods, and found they did not produce enough of an electromagnetic field to interfere with installed pacemakers. The researchers used a saline-filled bag to simulate the human body, a coil sensor to pick up electromagnetic emissions, and tested four different iPod models: both a fourth- and fifth-generation iPod, an iPod nano, and an iPod shuffle. “We measured magnetic field emissions with a 3-coil sensor placed within 1 cm (half an inch) of the surface of the player. Highly localized fields were observed (only existing in a one square cm area),” the researchers wrote in a report published in the journal BioMedical Engineering OnLine. “Based on the observations of our in-vitro study we conclude that no interference effects can occur in pacemakers exposed to the iPods we tested.”
Related Stories
- Report: iOS 7 ‘black, white, and flat all over’
- Apps: Foursquare 6.2, Hyper Breaker Turbo, Pandora 4.3 + Shazam 6.0
- Apps: ABC Aquarium, Disney Jr. Appisodes, Pinterest 2.4 + Pocket Informant Pro 3.0
- Report: iOS 7 could see Flickr, Vimeo integration
- Google Play Music All Access to get iOS app support?
- Apps: Can Knockdown 3, eBay 3.0/2.3, Jungle Book + Sonic the Hedgehog 2.0
Comments
If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.
Recent News
- iLounge Weekly coming Monday, giveaway update
- Apple drops refurbished fourth-gen iPad, mini prices
- Judge: US can show Apple e-book pricing conspiracy
- AT&T’s GoPhone to add LTE/HSPA+ support for iPhone
- Report: iOS 7 ‘black, white, and flat all over’
- Apple WWDC Keynote set for June 10
- Apps: Foursquare 6.2, Hyper Breaker Turbo, Pandora 4.3 + Shazam 6.0
- Apple patent application details interactive AirPlay, TV
- Report: iWatch pushed to late 2014?
- Griffin releases iPhone 5 Survivor + Catalyst Waterproof Case
Recent Reviews
- Lynktec TruGlide Pro Precision Stylus
- C4 Electronics Dolry HiFi Stone 30-Pin AirPlay Adapter
- Boombotix Boombot Rex Bluetooth Wireless Speaker
- Nuu Splash Portable Waterproof Bluetooth Wireless Speaker
- Scosche boomBottle Weatherproof Sport Wireless Speaker
- HMDX Jam Plus Bluetooth Wireless Speaker
- Fitbit Flex Wireless Activity & Sleep Wristband
- Cambridge Audio Minx Air 100 + 200 Bluetooth + AirPlay Wireless Speakers
- Mophie Juice Pack Plus for iPhone 5
- Ultimate Ears UE Boom
Recent Articles
- Costs associated with using FaceTime
- iMessages showing as Delivered when iPhone is out of coverage
- Inability to use Find My Friends without a passcode
- Calendar info disappears after iCloud restore
- Remove old iCloud backup after restoring to a new iPhone
- Setting up a ringtone in iTunes
- Using a Wi-Fi hard drive with an iPad
- Backing up and restoring an iPod classic
- Can’t restore iPod touch without passcode
- Retaining older versions of Apps during an iOS Restore


1
That’s all well and good, but why did they not test any actual pacemakers in-vitro? If that one centimeter square magnetic field was moved through a pacemaker, would any effects be observed? It just seems like kind of an obvious test…
Posted by jarofchris on February 1, 2008 at 6:59 PM (PST)
2
For jarofchris:
It may be a little problem called “ethics.” Since two previous experiments had indicated possible problems, they had to be careful.
Posted by gslusher on February 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM (PST)
3
For gslusher:
There is also a little problem called “reading carelessly”. I specifically said why not test pacemakers “in vitro”, which effectively means in the lab. This is to be contrasted with “in vivo”, which means in the body. My point was that rather than setting up an artificial test, why not test an actual pacemaker in the lab (NOT connected to an actual body, but connected to equipment that measured its output). Honestly, “ethics?”
Posted by jarofchris on February 4, 2008 at 6:03 PM (PST)